4.6 Article

Comparative evaluation of a mixed-fisheries effort-management system based on the Faroe Islands example

Journal

ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE
Volume 67, Issue 5, Pages 1036-1050

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsp284

Keywords

effort management; Faroe Islands; management strategy evaluation (MSE); mixed fisheries

Funding

  1. EU [022686]
  2. Faroese Fisheries Laboratory
  3. Ministry of Fisheries and Maritime Affairs
  4. Jan Hojgaard from the Fishermen's organisation in the Faroe Islands

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Total allowable catch (TAC) management has in many fisheries, especially mixed fisheries, failed to meet conservation objectives. For instance, for the Faroe Plateau mixed demersal fisheries, the TAC system failed to achieve the objective of an average annual fishing mortality of 0.45 for the three gadoid stocks cod (Gadus morhua), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), and saithe (Pollachius virens). Therefore, in 1996, an effort-regulation system with individual transferable effort quotas was introduced to manage the fisheries. Experience has shown that effort management without additional stock-specific measures may not be appropriate for such fisheries. A management strategy evaluation model was developed to compare an effort-management system based on the Faroese example with a TAC system as currently applied in EU fisheries. Results show that when stocks are considered in isolation, a total allowable effort system does not necessarily perform better than a TAC one. It depends on stock status and dynamics, the level of uncertainty, and the reactivity of the system to changes in scientific advice. When the stocks are considered together in mixed fisheries, effort management seems, however, to be appropriate, and interannual flexibility of the system appears to be the best compromise between short- and long-term objectives, as well as between biological sustainability and economic return.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available